Photo of Mark Duggan at daughter’s funeral cropped to paint him as a gangster

The Mark Duggan photograph used by most of the tabloid newspapers – which supposedly shows him as a hard-faced gangster – was actually cropped from a photograph taken of him mourning his dead daughter.

The following photograph was used regularly by tabloids like the Daily Express and the Daily Mail to accompany their articles painting Mark Duggan as a tough gangster:

But what the tabloids didn’t tell you is that Mark’s grim expression in the photograph is because at the time it was taken he was at his daughter’s funeral.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

203 thoughts on “Photo of Mark Duggan at daughter’s funeral cropped to paint him as a gangster”

Anyone notice the media obsession over the past few days on child sexual exploitation? Every newspaper, TV news & Radio has mentioned each case in great detail.
The Press & Media have no credentials for delivering the moral beacon of light.
Its a pity they forget the feelings of its victims when they sensationalize and spin, distort and destroy what’s left of truth & compassion for cynical aims.

The ‘gangster’ impression given or not given by this photo is highly subjective and so is irrelevant. Isn’t the more serious problem that the Mail and other media use words like “gangster” when they have absolutely no evidence? Duggan was never convicted of anything other than possession of cannabis and handling stolen goods. Millions of people did exactly the same in their youth, probably including most Daily Mail journalists, and perhaps you too…

Yeah – The police know what they’re doing, we should let them alone and trust them to do whatever is necessary. What about those Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six too? I bet they were up to no good!

any attempt to misrepresent the unfortunate Mr Duggan in this way is quite sickening–in the whole the grief in him is clearly visible and understood. Those in the hidden world of the persecuted like myself understand.

He looks no less threatening at all in the uncropped version. The truth is this photo, cropped or not, doesn’t prove what this man was like as a person, no photo proves that. Even if you could somehow prove that Duggan was a nasty piece of work with a photo, does that mean it was wrong to shoot him? Does it mean it was right to shoot him? Of course not. What’s the paint being made here? that the Media manipulates? Well of course they do, that’s their job!

If you want to raise a debate about Mark Duggan maybe it should be about the way in which armed Police are trained to read situations and how they make decisions about when to shoot someone and when not to? The enquiry returned a verdict of lawful killing. The system we have put in place to regulate this kind of activity has run it’s course, if people have an issue with the way that Police act they should look at themselves, who they vote for and how much interest they take in these mechanisms BEFORE something goes wrong. WE put politicians in office, WE put them in charge of training the Police and setting the rules of how they work, WE choose to take little or no interest in how this is done and then start bleating that it’s all unfair and horrible when it all goes horribly wrong.

There are non-sinister reasons for cropping photos. Most of the time it’s about what works best on the page – a landscape picture often fits better than a portrait one. Especially on a web page. There probably aren’t that many pictures of Duggan to choose from – that’s the reason this is so ubiquitous. I don’t think he looks particularly hard-faced here, either. Some sub or picture researcher will have looked him up on a database – and this image will be among a handful. The Guardian have also used it cropped. See here: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/10/mark-duggan-inquest-jury-counselling

Go search for “Mark Duggan” on the Guardian website and see how often this cropped image turns up. This is just how newspapers work. The Guardian does have an agenda in relation to Duggan – except it’s the opposite of that of the Mail/Express.

… and no doubt you can also manage to leave no DNA on it, and throw it 20 feet away over a fence whilst being shot in the chest, whilst holding a phone in the same hand, and without anybody seeing you do it!

This is not the first time the police have killed innocent people on flawed information, I could name more than one occasion, but the one that sticks in my mind is the one where the police said they had an anonymous tip off that a certain person was in a pub and he had a gun in his bag, the police shot dead a man who came out of the pub carrying a suspicious package, which turned out to be a chair or table leg.

I am sure you do not follow any moral code of law yourself so I would not expect you to consider it illegal to kill someone on flawed evidence, not only on the flawed evidince in the run up to the shooting, but the evidence and legal system that found that killing an innocent person was a legal act.
Perhaps you could change your moniker to fink offensively, then we can all reply to you with the acronym.

Past few days?! Try the past few years. 2013 was the official “Year of the Pedophile” in the news. The pedophile is new scape goat. Gotta rally the rabble around a common enemy. It’s the first rule in the book.

Actually you’re wrong, it wasn’t the officers involved in the killing who said that Duggan shot at police, it was others who made public statements. And as far as I know, no officers refused to cooperate with the inquest. If they had then they would have committed a criminal offence.

“everybody is innocent until PROVEN guilty”, who proved Mark Duggan was guilty enough to be shot?
Who from the legal profession will criticize the police and provide the evidence that proves them wrong?

See my answer above – It wasn’t the officers involved in the killing who said that Duggan shot at police, it was other officers who made public statements to the media. They later retracted the statements. That isn’t illegal. If giving a false story to the media was illegal then the House of Commons would be empty!

P.S. In case you hadn’t noticed, in the UK NOBODY can be guilty enough to be shot. Maybe it was murder, maybe it was manslaughter, maybe it was a genuine mistake. You don’t know. I don’t know. You are all missing the point!

Well obviously yes? If you have reasonable reason to believe something, even if it’s in fact false, then you can and should lawfully act on it. i.e. if I have a gun and start shooting innocent people in front of everyone, then disappear behind a pillar, throw my gun down the sewers, then take out a replica… well, at that point I’m no longer actually a threat. But if the police turn up they won’t know that, and will have reasonable reason to believe I still am a threat, and they’ll shoot me, and that will be lawful. It would obviously be moronic to prosecute officers involved in shooting me in that case as acting unlawfully.

Now obviously for the Duggan situation the reasons the police had false beliefs, flawed information, aren’t as clear cut as that. But you see how it’s entirely possible, and actually happens all the time, for the police to act on false beliefs but still be acting lawfully?

Mrs Fawkes – Actually you are on the right track with “Who from the legal profession will criticize the police and provide the evidence that proves them wrong?” Obviously it’s not the legal profession which usually collects evidence – so who is it?

You are the one that is missing the point and that is that it was proved to be a legal killing, even though as you have just said NOBODY can be guilty enough to be shot.
I think we all know the law is an ass or the truth that could be presented to prove a person’s innocence as in the case of the Guilford 4.
In this case and many like it I do think the law should be changed, unlike the immoral finkfurst.

While it is obviously highly inappropriate for the press to misuse the image – it’s his daughters funeral, do journalists have no common decency?! – that doesn’t change the fact that he had a gun. A photo doesn’t make someone a ‘gangster’, having a gun does. Throwing the gun out the window when you see the police changes nothing.

In fact all that was proved was that a gun was found near the scene, not how it got there. There was no proof that he had it in his possession, or that he threw it anywhere, let alone through the window (which in fact was never even mentioned).

Obviously whichever law that made it legal for the police to kill an innocent man or even a guilty one for that matter, or would you and the likes of Mccormack who says people shouldn’t bleat about the police and laws unless they clue themselves up on every legal entity before they have a right to an opinion.

Why should we clue ourselves up on the legal system. there is supposed to be prosecution and defence, claims and counterclaims, the only problem is there is probably a law that could have been used against the police in this instance, but the legal profession would not put themselves out to find it, or have probably changed it by now anyway if there was such legal powers to prosecute.

Because if you can’t be bothered to find out the facts (in this case about UK laws) then you don’t have a valid opinion, as you have so perfectly proved time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time!

We do not have to know the law, to have the opinion that to shoot a man dead is wrong, all we need is a conscience, something you lack.
My moniker is guy Fawkes not mrs Fawkes, that could be misconstrued that I may possibly be connected with Guido Fawkes and his rantings, funnily enough a lot like yours.

What is it with you that you refer to me as having a gender problem, Tom Pride took the name of an historical figure so have I, does he/she have a gender problem,
I’m sure there are many people that choose the names of those of the opposite sex or even idiotic names like yours.
Until you refer to me by my correct nom de plume, I refuse to answer your question.

Mrs Fawkes – I’m sorry, I was wrong to say that you are ignorant. That isn’t the point. EVERYBODY is born ignorant, but it’s what we do about our ignorance during our lives which marks us out. You could have taken a couple minutes to find out the answer to the question, but apparently you couldn’t be bothered.

I did not ask you to call me mrs, I said I did not like the name ms, I am a mrs, I did not even disclose what my gender was to you nor would I of, but bear no grudge against the person that did, only you for using it as some kind of verbal ammunition by implying I have a gender problem.
If you do not have anything else to go by try reading what is printed alongside my gravatar/avatar, or are you blind as well as thick.

It is immoral to kill – thou shalt not kill.
It is right to give the benefit of the doubt.
It is right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Mark Duggan was found to be innocent at the time he was shot – he was not holding a gun.
The police officer is guilty of breaking a moral code. He shot a man dead. We allow it if there is a reason.
The reason he gave was that Mark Duggan held a gun.
The police officer did not pause long enough to see there was no gun.
In his mind he was certain there was a gun, he did not allow Mark Duggan the benefit of the doubt.
His own discriminations and beliefs caused his judgement to be wrong.
He judged Mark Duggan to be guilty of holding a gun before allowing for the fact that there was no gun.
His belief was proven to be wrong.
Therefore he had no reason to kill.
Therefore he is guilty of a crime.
If we believe he is not a liar, then we must accept he has poor judgement.
He sees what is not there.
He is deluded and needs to seek psychiatric help.
It was proven that the police officers reason was incorrect. Therefore the killing was unlawful.
Only by twisting the law and allowing the jury to discriminate towards the police officer did he go free.
Our justice system is therefore corrupt and without reason.

Legitimising police violence? Regardless of this, or any photograph taken, the fact remains that he was carrying a gun that night and was therefore a public threat. If events had transpired any differently police would have been criticised for their lack of action on or against an unlawfully armed member of the public.

I’m only asking what you prefer to be called! Why is that so difficult? I thought you said you preferred “Mrs.” but apparently now you don’t. Please just say simply and clearly what you prefer, and that is what I will use from now on…

Mrs Fawkes – You really are a nasty little piece of work, aren’t you? I have never before seen anyone say they wish another contributor would be shot dead. You have gone beyond a point of acceptability and decency and I will not forget it.

f f
we simply are not born ignorant, but with a hunger for knowledge for our new surroundings, the same hunger for knowledge that we had in the womb…our brains are preprogrammed with the knowledge of who we are…when we see the light of day our hunger to learn accelerates…. “If you want to remain as ignorant as the day you were born then that’s up to you.”…that supposes that i am ignorant, and you are not…i find you very difficult to communicate with….the corpus callosum rapidly hard wires to accommodate our new environment, caused by instinctive learning…..

I have served on three juries. In each case there were only 2 or 3 of the jurors who gave a sh*t about reaching a fair verdict. The rest had already decided on a verdict for no rational reason at all, or they were just bored and wanted to go home or to the pub. The fact that a man might go to jail based on their decision was completely unimportant to them.

f f
to then i don’t understand….
why would we bother to remedy our ignorance, coz we don’t know that it will make any difference, we would simply be ignorant to that fact, we would not know it….where does the thought or concept that we can help improve our own lives, or the lives of others, come from within us and our natural expectations of the world, that we are preprogrammed to know…the answer is that we are born lovable, cooperative, sociable, and non-violent….

If you read what you wrote and what I wrote you will see that you asked if it was WRONG shoot a man dead under any circumstances, and I replied only if it’s you, because I would not want to see you shot it would be too quick I would choose something a lot slower and more painful for you.

I think I misunderstood what you meant, and to be honest I still don’t understand what you’re trying to say. We ARE all born ignorant, but I agree with you that we are born with an instinct to learn… though some more than others!

It takes a woman to talk common sense. Nobody should be allowed to shoot anybody else and that includes the police, there is enough of them and plenty of other ways to apprehend and restrain a gunman with resorting to shooting them dead. They are supposed to be marksmen anyway so surely a rubber bullet in an area that would bring down an assailant should be sufficient if absolutely necessary.

f f though some more than others!
ok now if someone is ignorant is it their fault that they are, and does calling them ignorant, remedy their ignorance, clearly not, so then what is the remedy?
the remedy is to help others find themselves 1st, then people learn easily what they want to know…….

g fawkes
the whole approach needs to be seriously reconsidered….when i was young, several hundred yrs ago, it was a widely held consensus that armed police, just made the whole gun problem worse, a view i still hold…

yea, me too, suckered by scum sector of the media. whatever and whoever the man was, and I don’t know, the scum media set out to make us hate him, and they succeeded, bastards, we just cannot trust them.

First off lets start with some common sense… The guy wouldn’t be stupid enough to be carrying a gun in the car in the first place… Yeah he had a reputation as a ‘Gangsta’ but he was more like a bully to the area.. he wasn’t a nice person and i’m sure if you asked around the area or surrounding areas you would hear stories. But this is a guy that was killed because of itchy trigger finger police.. simple as that.. his reputation preceded him hence the shooting.

The worst part of this is the press have and are continually trying to make him the fall guy for all of this.. The riots were more to do with greed than anything else, I would throw the 90% range for people who were in on the riots for reasons other than the death of Mark Duggan.

CJRhodes there is no ‘fact’ that he was carrying a gun.. unless YOU were there then there are no facts just rumours and whatever you can make the public as a whole believe through your stories.

OBD – Yes, in most cases if somebody is ignorant about something then it IS their fault, though of course they may not be interested in whatever it is, in which case they they shouldn’t shoot their mouth off about it.

It’s only by recognising one’s own ignorance that one can learn. You’re right that simply calling somebody ignorant seldom helps, but pointing out somebody’s ignorance specifically and with reasoning can help… but then again for some people it doesn’t! (…and I don’t mean you).

It was also used by The Voice, The Guardian, the BBC, 4Ward4Ever “Deaths in Custody” campaign charity, and United Families and Friends “Deaths in Custody” charity. What’s your conspiracy theory about them?

OBD – I know what you wrote. I think ‘finding yourself’ is meaningless cr@p. It’s not difficult, just look in the mirror and there you are! How is ‘finding yourself’ a remedy for anything? Recognising your own deficiencies, ignorance and lack of understanding is a different matter, and if you can do that then becomes perfectly clear what you should do next… START TO LEARN!

Then you would be wrong, as is obvious because you don’t have a clue about any of the cases! Why do you continually give silly opinions about things which you know absolutely NOTHING about? It only shows you for the mindless bigot that you are.

f f
because you, i, we, all want answers….and we intuitively/instinctively know that our culture is crap….so look in other places….see this vid clip does this man have a point? http://www.selfishcapitalist.com/

Not only have you deliberately insulted my mother, you said “I would not want to see you shot it would be too quick I would choose something a lot slower and more painful for you” and then you criticise MY conduct on a public forum?????? I think you are the nastiest person I have ever seen on such a forum.

Are you trying to say that you didn’t mean it? Go on, try opening up a little, you might be surprised at the results. If so, there is a possibility of communication, and that is the only valid reason for being on this site.

personally I think we have over communicated with inane banter on what is in effect a sombre subject that Tom presented us with and which should be given more respect, so I will sign off on this one – catch you later.

Mrs Guy ‘Moron or monster’ Fawkes
YOU have communicated with inane banter, but I have not. I don’t know whether you are a fundamentally immoral person or just so shallow and stupid that you say anything which comes into your head. The outcome is the same. You may think that what you have written on this site is transient, but you will find out that it is not.

f f
no, guy fawkes is not one of those….a different thread when the post is relevant and my yes is a grey area yes, of real answers, to me real answers can only mean universal truth, so as i said i need to reflect on being clearer….and i do need a break atm…remind me at some point in the future, meanwhile i’m sure that you will continue to explore….

Do you think I will not stand by my words serious or not, I thought you had realised by now how intransigent I can be, so am not in the least bothered that my posts are intransient.
You know when you grow up you might not take yourself so seriously.

Mrs Fawkes – You’ve changed your mind often enough, so it’s very plain that you do NOT stand by your words. On the other hand, I do. You have failed to get a single shot on target, and in every case where you think you have, I led you there! If you think I’m taking this exchange seriously then you haven’t been reading very carefully. Look again……

OBD – I have to disagree with you about Mrs Fawkes. Read what she says – can you can find a single open question that she’s asked? She seldom asks any questions at all, and those few are only to seek confirmation of what she already thinks. Her behaviour is not that of somebody who is looking for real answers.

Mrs Fawkes – I used to work with somebody who had exactly that same attitude. She thought that if people didn’t appear to take her sexist and racist jokes and comments seriously then they didn’t matter. She was wrong, and so are you.

… and “sexual persuasions”??? It’s a long time since I heard that phrase! It really gives your thinking away.

It was actually his mobile phone. And yes their was a gun found on the crime scene, But it was found no where near mark it was found behind a wall on the grass, which funny enough didn’t even have marks finger prints on. And also the police statements didnt actual add up, because the officers claimed he chucked the gun infront of them, which the medical report stated that was inpossible because the police officer shot mark in the arm, and again like i stated no finger prints was found on the gun for that to be true. So before you make silly remarks at least no details of the facts.

1 [mass noun] the action or process of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something: Monica needed plenty of persuasion before she actually left
More example sentencesSynonyms

2a belief or set of beliefs, especially religious or political ones: writers of all political persuasions
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.1a group or sect holding a particular religious belief: the village had two chapels for those of the Primitive Methodist persuasion
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.2 • humorous sort, kind, or nature: half a dozen gents of British persuasion

“It wasn’t the officers involved in the killing who said that Duggan shot at police, it was other officers who made public statements to the media.”

They work for the same organisation! The whole police handling (rather like the panic shooting of a man without a gun) was a shambles.

Should we trust an organisation that handle the public like this, like idiots?

Plus FF, you seem to desperately arguing for a futile cause:

“You can’t convict ‘the police’ of a crime. You have to prove that a certain person committed a crime. You lot are so ignorant of the law it astonishes me!”

I don’t think anyone is asking for law to be changed. Just for the police to tell the truth. Or you will be asking for FURTHER RIOTS. Bigger picture. WHo would be interested in “taking police to court” haha, the masses won’t be that patient/naive!

How old are you both, by the way? Forget gender issues, you seem to have maturity problems.. Even if I do agree with Fawkes’ views over FF’s views.

The police would basically garner far more respect fro the general public (of ALL ethnic groups, geo locations, classes) if they just

…..told the truth….

For the record I do not think the law is robust enough to deal with police issues such as this one. The first crime was possession of a firearm, correct? Unless the gun was planted, which I don’t think was proven. So going off that, MD had a firearm illegally. He didn’t deserve to die for that, however, having arrested the man the police should then not end up shooting anybody. Correct? So both parties are at a wrong for different crimes.

Proven or not, lets be fair the guy tossed a gun which was found about 100 yrds from the cab he was in.there’s a pretty good chance he was a gangster convicted or not. And there’s a good chance he’d of ended up shooting someone. At the same time u don’t want to condem a man not proven to be guilty, don’t automatically jump to his defense.

Randall – You’re missing the point. Obviously they work for the same organisation, but you can’t prosecute an organisation, you can only prosecute the individual(s) and you must have evidence to do so. I agree that huge numbers of people (including me) do not trust the police. But it’s no good just complaining that they don’t tell the truth… what should we do to ensure that they DO tell the truth more often? I subscribe to some ideas, but I would like to hear yours.

The only person that thinks there is something wrong with being a homosexual is so obviously you, the way you have ranted about it, not being able to tie me to being a homophobe in a serious sense you thought a humourous sense would do, well you have certainly got me laughing.
Now take those fidgetting fingers to a more appropriate and relevant post Mr rain man and we will continue the argument there. OK.

Ms Fawkes – I happen to think that old homophobes such as you are disgusting. Some people might say it’s not your fault, because you were raised at a time when it was mainstream opinion. I strongly disagree with that. It’s about morality, and anyone CAN question their own morals if they want to.

If you want to dismiss defending the rights of LGBT people as a rant then that’s up to you and your sense of morality. To then also try to imply that such opinions are a result of autism just reinforces the breadth of your bigotry.

If you kept up with what is going on on the rest of the site, you will find I was referring to you as rain man as in the sense that Gay men have supposedly brought the floods. That UKip fella could be right with the gay’s floods of crocodile tears. I’m switching channels as I said go elsewhere and I will continue to argue TTFN.

P.S. Nobody on this site (or any other that I’ve seen) has referred to him as “rain man” – it’s only you. And if this site is where you get your news from, then no wonder your perception of morality and reality world is so warped!